Barkley should start and lose or keep the job. Nuance, emotion, morale are important.

[billsredneck1]

4 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

This is a weakness for McDermott that shows up repeatedly. 

 

He should start Barkely because the Bills kicked butt behind Barkely. It is that simple.

 

Barkely should be able to prove it was either a fluke, or not. The team deserves that.

 

Instead they will start Allen for no other reason other than they drafted him.

 

How is the team supposed to be positive and stoked when they know they finally had a tremendous victory and in response the coaches pulled the starting QB?

 

What if Allen does the most likely thing, and struggles? What if it is so bad they have to pull him? Then he is behind the 8 ball if you ask me. They are risking that for no good enough reason.

 

This staff paints themselves into corners where the only possible non-disaster outcome is that their plan goes exactly the way they envision.

 

So lets hope Allen does great because if he doesn't we will have a better playing QB sitting on the bench just because the coach says so.

 

And the team and us fans will never know for sure if Barkley was a fluke or not.

 

If Barkely starts and does great, then there is no down side. If he starts and flops, then we have Allen and we put him in next time. The only down side this way is that Allen loses a game of practice.

 

If Allen starts and does great it will be the first time, and it will be great. But it is unlikely. And if he starts and flops badly then you have all kinds of trouble. 

 

The decision is easy and as usual with the QB spot  the coaching staff  made the wrong one.

 

 

 

i'm not gonna repeat my whole long agreement with this in the other thread.

[billsfan_34]

No- you stick to the plan and groom the number 7 pick overall.

[HappyDays]

I can see both sides of this.

 

I did want them to start Barkley again, not because I care about winning games this year, but because he came off the street and put up 41 points with what had previously been a historically bad offense. I don't think the additions of Foster and McKenzie alone caused us to suddenly blow out a decent defense. Barkley played really well after 11 days of being here. I'm of the opinion that until you have a franchise QB you should be rewarding QBs that play well. Leave no stone unturned. Allen hasn't earned anything yet. That's why I was fine starting Peterman the first game. Yes he crapped the bed but no one could honestly say he didn't win the competition in camp and preseason. Switching from him to Allen was not a big deal. No one was ever calling for Allen to be pulled for Peterman after that. I would like to see us do the same thing with Barkley. It's easier to switch from Barkley to Allen than the other way around.

 

On the other hand Barkley is 28 years old, he's put up yards before but also turned the ball over a lot, and arguably he should have thrown two picks against the Jets. So maybe we are better off letting Allen develop if we've concluded Barkley will never be consistent enough to be a franchise QB. I get that argument.

 

Still I would go with the hot hand if I were the Bills because Barkley starting is a no-lose scenario. If he goes out against the Jags and throws 3 picks, now we know he hasn't changed his ways and we can start Allen the rest of the year. No one will call for Allen to be benched for Barkley. And of course if he does the same thing to the Jags that he did to the Jets then things would get interesting.

 

Starting Allen is only a win scenario if he plays well. If he plays really poorly and suddenly the offense is stagnant for 2 or 3 games, you will have fans questioning the regime's decision and people will be calling for Barkley to start. Then you either keep trotting out a QB who is not ready or you pull him for Barkley again and the optics of either decision would look terrible.

 

So I'll be rooting for Allen to play well, but if he doesn't there will be serious questions about McDermott and Beane's decision making on offense. We all saw a QB off the street put up 41 points. If we go back to 10 points a game where do we go from there?

30 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

McDermott - I was around a situation in Philly years ago where AJ Feely came in and won some games for us, but when the starter was back, the starter played

 

And this is my issue. He is calling Allen the starter but what has Allen done to deserve that label automatically? I don't care that he was drafted in the 1st round. He should earn it like anyone else. Barkley in my opinion earned another game. They are handing the franchise to Allen and I don't get it.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, HappyDays said:

I can see both sides of this.

 

I did want them to start Barkley again, not because I care about winning games this year, but because he came off the street and put up 41 points with what had previously been a historically bad offense. I don't think the additions of Foster and McKenzie alone caused us to suddenly blow out a decent defense. Barkley played really well after 11 days of being here. I'm of the opinion that until you have a franchise QB you should be rewarding QBs that play well. Leave no stone unturned. Allen hasn't earned anything yet. That's why I was fine starting Peterman the first game. Yes he crapped the bed but no one could honestly say he didn't win the competition in camp and preseason. Switching from him to Allen was not a big deal. No one was ever calling for Allen to be pulled for Peterman after that. I would like to see us do the same thing with Barkley. It's easier to switch from Barkley to Allen than the other way around.

 

On the other hand Barkley is 28 years old, he's put up yards before but also turned the ball over a lot, and arguably he should have thrown two picks against the Jets. So maybe we are better off letting Allen develop if we've concluded Barkley will never be consistent enough to be a franchise QB. I get that argument.

 

Still I would go with the hot hand if I were the Bills because Barkley starting is a no-lose scenario. If he goes out against the Jags and throws 3 picks, now we know he hasn't changed his ways and we can start Allen the rest of the year. No one will call for Allen to be benched for Barkley. And of course if he does the same thing to the Jags that he did to the Jets then things would get interesting.

 

Starting Allen is only a win scenario if he plays well. If he plays really poorly and suddenly the offense is stagnant for 2 or 3 games, you will have fans questioning the regime's decision and people will be calling for Barkley to start. Then you either keep trotting out a QB who is not ready or you pull him for Barkley again and the optics of either decision would look terrible.

 

So I'll be rooting for Allen to play well, but if he doesn't there will be serious questions about McDermott and Beane's decision making on offense. We all saw a QB off the street put up 41 points. If we go back to 10 points a game where do we go from there?

 

The team is 3-7 and going nowhere.  Allen's development in preparation for 2019 and beyond is far more important to the long term future than a few more wins or stats under Barkley. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

4 hours ago, Roch-A-Bill said:

We needed a 10th thread on this subject?

 

 We certainly didn’t need a 10th. I’m pretty sure this is the 27th. 

[HappyDays]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

The team is 3-7 and going nowhere.  Allen's development in preparation for 2019 and beyond is far more important to the long term future than a few more wins or stats under Barkley. 

 

Starting Barkley has nothing to do with wins. I am very pleased that McDermott isn't talking about how we're still technically in the hunt. The team knows what this season is and they aren't hiding it, I'm fine with that. But what if Barkley is good? I would rather know for sure. And I would rather not ruin Allen's confidence and development by putting him in early.

[billsredneck1]

3 hours ago, FearLess Price said:

That is really short sighted. You could play barkley for another game or two only to evaluate the rest of the offense to pin point every position that we need to work on. After thst tho Allen has to start. This year is a wash for him, he jus needs to get as many real live reps as he can this year to level up for next year where we should be able to challenge for the WC

good points and that is important. we just plugged some new aspects into the offense. give them another game with the same qb to get acclimated.....and have some success.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

Starting Barkley has nothing to do with wins. I am very pleased that McDermott isn't talking about how we're still technically in the hunt. The team knows what this season is and they aren't hiding it, I'm fine with that. But what if Barkley is good? I would rather know for sure. And I would rather not ruin Allen's confidence and development by putting him in early.

 

He's not a long term starter as evidenced by his play over the years.  Jared Goff and Mitch Trubisky both started down the stretch in their rookies seasons on bad teams and were better off for it in the long run.  Allen has already missed six weeks and he needs this time to speed up his timeline. 

[HappyDays]

6 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

He's not a long term starter as evidenced by his play over the years.  Jared Goff and Mitch Trubisky both started down the stretch in their rookies seasons on bad teams and were better off for it in the long run.  Allen has already missed six weeks and he needs this time to speed up his timeline. 

 

There is no evidence Allen is a long term starter either. That's my point. Barkley has easily played the best game out of every Bills QB this year. It really isnt even close. I don't believe Allen's development would be harmed by sitting him another game. Mahomes is playing extremely well after starting exactly one game his rookie season.

[akcash]

Start Barkley

[kkim0904]

4 hours ago, jr1 said:

they'd have to win every game to get the wild card

If Barkley wins every game and Bills make to Wild card, he is our New franchise QB.  There is no doubt, Bills will more game with Barkely.  JA is not even mediocre.  

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

There is no evidence Allen is a long term starter either. That's my point. Barkley has easily played the best game out of every Bills QB this year. It really isnt even close. I don't believe Allen's development would be harmed by sitting him another game. Mahomes is playing extremely well after starting exactly one game his rookie season.

Maybe but they drafted him 7th overall because they think he is a long term starter. You want them to just reverse directions now? Seems a little soon.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Warcodered

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

There is no evidence Allen is a long term starter either. That's my point. Barkley has easily played the best game out of every Bills QB this year. It really isnt even close. I don't believe Allen's development would be harmed by sitting him another game. Mahomes is playing extremely well after starting exactly one game his rookie season.

 

No there isn't, but we'll certainly find out from here on out given the investment made in him.  I couldn't care any less about how Barkley looked even as I acknowledge he had a good game.  I'm pleased the team wasted no time in saying Allen will be back in as soon as he's ready to roll which is expected to be next Sunday. 

[fansince88]

Do people not realize the 17 is much greater then 5?

[HappyDays]

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Maybe but they drafted him 7th overall because they think he is a long term starter. You want them to just reverse directions now? Seems a little soon.

 

I don't want them to reverse directions, I don't think they should even have a specific direction in mind yet. There is nothing wrong with drafting a QB in the 1st round just because the position is so important, but still exploring other options. The Redskins did not hesitate to switch from RGIII to Cousins when it became clear that he was the better player. Whatever is working to make the offense productive, they should stick with that until it is proven otherwise.

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

I don't want them to reverse directions, I don't think they should even have a specific direction in mind yet. There is nothing wrong with drafting a QB in the 1st round just because the position is so important, but still exploring other options. The Redskins did not hesitate to switch from RGIII to Cousins when it became clear that he was the better player. Whatever is working to make the offense productive, they should stick with that until it is proven otherwise.

 

RGIII was a wreck after he blew out his knee. Whatever is working with Barkley is not's what important moving forward. 3 and 7 record says youth movement as began to see last week.  

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

None of Taylor, Peterman, or Barkley were top ten 1st round picks with a major investment that cost them draft capital.  This is a whole different deal and if you think Barkley means anything to them beyond a potential backup, then you are seeing their long term vision.  You're trying way too hard. 

 

They didn't want Allen to start this year.

 

They wanted him to ride the pine and learn from the bench.

 

Do you even dispute that?

 

What McDermott and Beane screwed up on was their massive overestimation of Peterman and McCarron.

 

Barkley could be viewed as an opportunity to hit the reset on Allen learning from the bench for a few more weeks.

 

You're exactly right about the investment in Allen. That's why I won't be surprised with either of the 2 decisions McDermott might make.

[26CornerBlitz]

14 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

They didn't want Allen to start this year.

 

They wanted him to ride the pine and learn from the bench.

 

Do you even dispute that?

 

What McDermott and Beane screwed up on was their massive overestimation of Peterman and McCarron.

 

Barkley could be viewed as an opportunity to hit the reset on Allen learning from the bench for a few more weeks.

 

You're exactly right about the investment in Allen. That's why I won't be surprised with either of the 2 decisions McDermott might make.

 

Week 12 is coming up and the circumstances are completely different.    Regardless, I don't believe they planned on sitting him all season.  That was then, this is now.

Edited November 18, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[Warcodered]

7 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

They didn't want Allen to start this year.

 

They wanted him to ride the pine and learn from the bench.

 

Do you even dispute that?

 

What McDermott and Beane screwed up on was their massive overestimation of Peterman and McCarron.

 

Barkley could be viewed as an opportunity to hit the reset on Allen learning from the bench for a few more weeks.

 

You're exactly right about the investment in Allen. That's why I won't be surprised with either of the 2 decisions McDermott might make.

They had either A.J. McAaron or Peterman to keep him from starting this season there is a better than good chance they saw him starting by now. Also that scenario is dead and gone this one is completely different. I mean why would you pull him for the easier half of the schedule?

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

I think you're putting too much emphasis on McDermott saying when healthy. It seems like the only reason Allen didn't start against the Jets was that they wanted to be certain he was 100% and not take the chance. Two weeks later I doubt that'll be the case. If you're saying McDermott is just going to use it as an excuse I'd hope he has enough respect for people's intelligence to not think anyone is going to buy that.

 

See my comments above.

 

Clearly McDermott has no respect for the intelligence of the media or fans.

7 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Week 12 is coming up and the circumstances are completely different.    Regardless, I don't belithey planned on sitting him all season.  That was then, this is now.

 

What does belithey mean?

 

Regardless, Allen hasn't exactly lit the world on fire so far, though he has certainly flashed and demonstrated poise and composure.

 

I could really see this going either way.

 

Who are you trying to convince?